Brady Hoke's Integrity-

Do you think Brady Hoke would lose some integrity if he lets Toussaint play on Saturday? My thought is he should sit out this game. Hoke needs to show some discipline to his team and send that message to them.-- Roger W. Krueger

This is a great question and I'm sure is weighing on Hoke. I personally don't feel that's the case. This incident happened well over a month ago and if Fitz has met Hoke's criteria I could see a case for the punishment being over. On the other hand, if this incident happened on a game week then I would think the kid has to sit without question. If Fitz plays we'll hear a bunch of crap from Sparty, Irish and Buckeys. But who cares. I love Hoke and completely support and trust any decision he makes. He's got plent of integrity in the bank!

Comment viewing options

Had this happened in May, it would already be a non-issue. Internet commentary always wants TANGIBLE PUNISHMENT NOW but rarely do people (re: commentators OR journalists) actually critically look at what happened or have any legal background to comment with authority.

Roger Krueger says Hoke needs to "Show some discipline and send a message..." Nobody outside the Fort even knows what Fitz' punishment has been so far. The discipline and message may have already been sent for all Rog knows.

I second this 100%. How do we know he hasn't been made an example of already? His punishment may have been such that other players say, "I'd rather miss a game." As I said before, I trust Coach Hoke to make the right decision, even if many of us don't agree on what that is.

I give it a 95% chance Fitz doesn't see the field Saturday. Several reasons:

1. Brady Hoke is not a ‘win at all costs’ coach. From day one he’s been about the kids and what a luxury it is for him to be able to offer them the Michigan football heritage of academics, on-field success, and integrity. When I heard “this is Michigan fergodsakes” I heard Brady saying this is one of the few places where you can do things the right way and still have on-field success.

2. Before it becomes incumbent upon Michigan to carry the BiG banner vs. the SEC and others, it makes sense for Michigan to first get back to winning the BiG for the first time after a long lapse. So, as flashy as this game is, I'd hazard it falls in the bottom half of Brady's season priority list. This season = winning the BiG. The NW, Neb, MSU, Iowa, MN and Ohio games are all more important.

3. Michigan men fall on their sword before compromising their integrity. That is at the root of our sense of superiority, not academics and on-field success.

4. Sitting Fitz will coincidentally give the media a talking point in the event we don’t cover the spread. If we lose big, then (a) we were not at full strength, and (b) Michigan is to be praised for doing the right thing to set an example.

5. Rawls is a beast and Vince Smith is a very capable asset.

Crazier things have happened, but I will be very surprised if we see Fitz in the game.

The thing I love most in the world has been held hostage by unacceptable people.- B. Cook<

I've mentioned before taking away his driving privileges until the season ends or even until graduation. It deals directly with the problem and is an ongoing reminder of the mistake made.

If Fitz came to me as the coach and said "I know I fucked up, I've sold my car, nothing like this will ever happen again" with maybe some additional comment/restriction about drinking at all I don't think I would have any problem letting him play after what I'm sure has been a series of additional punishments throughout summer/camp.

It hurts the team, but that should hit Fitz where it hurts. Punishments are much worse when it hurts someone else as well. If it's just him getting punished, the next time he drinks a little too much at a party, he might chance it because he feels he can endure the punishment again. If he has in his head that the team would take a blow, he might call a cab. I'm not sure which I would prefer in this situation, but there is a point to make for each argument.

Who says the team has not been punished? When I played in high school we had a player skip classes one afternoon and have a few drinks. He then decided to show up to practice after school. Across the street from our fields was a set of hills. We always ran those hills before practice but on that particular night the whole team ran those hills about 3 times as much as normal. It did not take a genius to figure out why we were doing the extra running. When the real practice started I think that everytime that player got hit there was a little extra effort put into it. I am sure that the player didn't miss any game time that week. I am also positive that nobody else showed up to practice after drinking again. The coaches were quite effective in gettign their message across. The player that showed up half drunk paid a little more then everybody else did because most of the team got to take their frustrations out on him at some point. (The coaches did not put a target on him at all, he did it himself.) The team did not suffer during the game by having one of the starters on the bench. In fact, in the long term the extra running probably helped us some.

I think that Hoke knows what he is doing and I also think that the whole team will likely be aware of what might happen if they step out of line.

Isn't that the point, with discipline in a team game? I would think that a practically-essential element in imposing discipline on a team sport is that your personal screwups can hurt the team. Fitzgerald Toussaint plays for Michigan and represents Michigan. There needs to be a "Michigan" consequence.

I honestly don't know what Hoke is going to do. I expect him to suspend Toussaint and Clark for at least the Alabama trip. I think both should be left at home.

But I am open to other notions; as some say, we don't know what private punishment has been imposed. But running stairs and that sort of thing is pretty weak.

And where I depart from a lot of you is that with a criminal charge, Hoke owes everyone an explanation -- a big goddam explanation -- if there is no team punishment. Why is this person who pled guilty playing football for Michigan?

I think it's Hoke's decision to make. If Fitz has paid the price to the team and Hoke already, then so be it. Like I said, I think the timing is crucial. What if he would have done this back in January? Should he still miss games, I don't think that's the case.

I'm trusting Hoke to have wrestled with this and done the best by his lights. And he'll likely offer--or hint at--his rationale, because Fort or no Fort he's a pretty up-front guy. And then I will accept it, knowing that a good decent guy wrestled with it and did what he thought he should do. This isn't one-size-fits-all stuff.

punishment? A. Sit him out of the game and possibly disrupt the team chemistry, or B. Have Fitz do sort of an "internal" community service, like go listen to victims family members that have lost a loved one in a drunk driving incident.

For some reason, people seem to think that because he plays football, there should be more. In some cases, they seem to feel as if their own Michigan experience is devalued because of something a football player did off the field, or that <gasp> we made fun of a rival for their actions dealing with a similar circumstance. That, by golly, is all the reason that fans need to press for actions that might impact a life, or a career.

I have no problem holding football players to a higher standard as representatives of the university, but until someone shows me the manual where a game suspension is the only punishment allowed (or necessary), I am going with the coach.

Unless someone close enough to the program to have real-time knowledge weighs in and changes my mind, I'm supporting Hoke. If he chooses to play Fitz, I'm fine with that. If he feels there is no suitable price that can be paid other than sitting, I'm good with that as well.

My mother was killed by a man whose personal means allowed him to repeatedly manipulate the system. He had never lost his license, despite repeated arrests. At one point, his record (these were paper records back then) even managed to disappear. If the system had done what was right, he probably should not have been on the street, but I will admit to some bias there. Punishing a football player for what amounts to 1 drink - the difference between .08 and .12 will not change that, it won't make the legal system perfect, and it won't restore dead people to life.

at the beginning of last season. Plus there were unconfirmed rumors about a third. that were apparently true. (He didn't play vs WMU but started the next week.) The suspensions were announced August 7, plenty of time to administer a different punishment. Does anyone think what they did was worse than Fitz' offense?

I have a hard time looking at that precedent and thinking Fitz will play Saturday.

For the sake of argument, let's say Michael Cox blew a .12 in July 2011 and Hoke said, "Welllllll, my policy for DUI's is to sit the player for one game", then it would be an integrity issue. If Fitz plays, I might put a question in the back of my mind about Hoke being lenient, but unless Fitz gets treatment non-thousand yard rushers get, I don't have any reason to question his integrity.

"We bring you to Michigan to take care of Michigan; your job is to protect that block M."
-Carol Hutchins

Exactly. And just so people know, for someone Fitz' size, the limit only allows for maybe 3-4 12oz beers to blow what he did. That's not much. Not that I'm condoning drinking and driving, but Fitz had liquor, which is harder to gauge. If he even had 2-3oz of 100 proof, he'd blow over the legal limit for sure. He made a mistake, it's one that millions of people get away with daily, and no one was hurt. With the court allowing him to plea down, it's obscene that people are so self-righteous I say that Hoke's integrity would be marred by letting him play after sitting a series or two. Maybe it's the Michigan arrogance coming out, but it's absurd and why some schools' fans scare coaches/players away.

If Fitz was a discipline problem before I would completely understood holding him out against Alabama. But I don't think that has been the case, and I don't think Hoke has had a discipline problem with the team as a hold so holding Fitz out to "to show some discipline to his team and send that message to them" is a stupid statement and makes no sense.

If Fitz has done everything he needed to do to show Brady Hoke that he understands how stupid what he did was I have no problem with Hoke deciding to let him play the entire game. If he latter goes on and does it a second time, that's when he shows the inability to learn from his own mistakes, and that's when somebody truly needs to step in and help him learn that certain behavior won't be tolerated.

On whether Fitz should play or not. I don't have enough info, as do any of us on here. As far as Coach Hoke's integrity goes, I think he showed that last year, when he kicked stonum off the team. We obviously could have used him quite a bit as a receiver and returner. Hoke knows his team and players much better than I, so I'll let him do his job.

On whether Fitz should play or not. I don't have enough info, as do any of us on here. As far as Coach Hoke's integrity goes, I think he showed that last year, when he kicked stonum off the team. We obviously could have used him quite a bit as a receiver and returner. Hoke knows his team and players much better than I, so I'll let him do his job.

It's all about the future of the kid and the integrity of the program, and I trust Hoke to do the right thing on both accounts. I also trust him to make that decision regardless of the opnions of Sparties, Bucknuts, Freepers and others who would find something to complain about if FItz gets suspended for six games. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

I mainly hear this argument from fans who have had their fill of their team's integrity being questioned and who salivate at the chance to turn the tables on me. I don't like it, but I don't get paid to make these decisions. I trust in Hoke and the staff to do what's right for the team and player in this situation. I would fear the day we start letting fans and broadcasters run the program.

I know this may be an odd stance but I think Hoke is going to sit him, and all his "uncertainty" is an act. Maybe I'm giving his PR ability too much credit, but I think he is letting the hype build on the importance of Fitz only to sit him. That would shut up rivals AND further win over the media.

I think a symbolic gesture, such as holding Fitz out for a series, would be appropriate. We don't really know, but most of us can guess that Fitz has probably had to run a lot of Big House steps this off-season, apologize to the team, and jump through whatever other hoops the staff has come up with.

I think a series off sends a message, punishes Fitz by taking a start out of his stats, but doesn't punish the rest of the team by making him sit a game where they need "all hands on deck."

But as a human with ethics I feel uneasy permitting the kid to play after doing something so dangerous.

Drunk drivers kill approximately 13,000 people a year in the US with thousands more maimed.When one considers these statistics the case for sitting Fitz grows stronger if for other reason than to empathize to him the ramifications of such dangerously foolish behavior.

Millions of people, for better or worse, have at least one drink and drive a car every year. The overwhelming majority don't commit a traffic violation, much less get involved in a fatal car crash.

Driving drunk is foolish and makes an already inherently dangerous activity more so, but acting like DUI=DEATH is a very big exaggeration. Talking, texting, changing the radio station, not wearing a seatbelt, and a host of other activities also increase the risk of dying or hurting someone else in a car accident, but no one would demand Fitz be suspended for any of those actions.

Because there are other things that increase accident risk, it's okay to drink and drive?

Fitz shouldn't be suspended because other people do stupid things?

This is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that millions of people drink and drive does not make it any better. I've had a friend killed by a drunk driver. I've also had friends and family in tragic accidents that didn't involve alcohol. But anyone who has been around a drunk driver knows how dangerous that driver is, and we need to discourage that behavior. While it's true that sober drivers account for more accidents, it's also true that drunk drivers are far more likely to cause accidents (especially among young people) and more likely to cause serious or fatal accidents.

Bottom line: drunk driving is stupid, and should be severely disciplined by the coaching staff.

Now, all that said, I'm not sure a full game suspension is necessary, but I would be disappointed if Fitz wasn't suspended for at least a portion of the game.

11 National Championships. 42 B1G Championships. Winningest program in college football. HAIL TO THE VICTORS

Apparently MGoBlog has quite a few posters who are fooled by sophistry.

Your example fails because there are far more drivers than drunk drivers. Thus it makes sense that more people die simply because there are more people doing the former than the latter.

There also is an enornous difference between having a drink and being at or over the legal limit. I am not criticizing those who take a drink and then drive. I am criticizing those who are DRUNK and then drive. Big difference.

You are correct in pointing out that there are multiple reasons for why people cause accidents. But drunk driving is the most problematic of these reasons because so many die as a result. Drunk drivers represent a disproportionate amount of the fatalities. 13,000 deaths a year is a pretty sobering statistic. One that we ought to heed when discussing this issue.

It just isn't as dangerous as your 13,000 number given out of context makes it sound. 90,000+ people a year die from preventable medical errors (they give you the wrong medicine, leave a scalpel inside, etc.). Another 90,000+ die from infections they pick up in the hospital. And people spend way more time in their cars than they do at the doctor's office.

Yet no one would ever grab the keys from someone who was headed in for a check-up or minor operations. Coach Hoke doesn't have to suspend anyone because they take a pre-med courseload (since doctors make up a much smaller percentage of the population than drunk drivers and are causing way more damage).

No one should drink and drive, but equating doing so with an immense risk of death and destruction is a big exaggeration.

I don't see why missing a game is an absolute necessity as a measure of integrity or something. I get the feeling that around here, the purpose is to maintain a bit of a superiority thing because we feel hypocritical after bashing MSU/ND for letting kids off on similar things. To me, this is a nonstarter. Policy should not be determined by what other schools do, so strike that out immediately.

Anyways, like somebody said, there are more punishments than missing a game. We have no idea what his is. I'm expecting he'll miss the game and I'm 100% behind Hoke if he sits him, but I'm not going to get all self-righteous if he plays either. Hoke has earned my trust to make the right decision here.

Normal people lose their careers over DUI's these days. Sure, Fitz isn't "normal people" because he's an athlete and probably bound for professional level ball. I think he should sit two games. If he plays at all against Alabama, Brady Hoke would lose integrity in my eyes.